Introduction of an OPCAB Program Aimed at Total Arterial Grafting in a Multidisciplinary Setting: Feasible and Safe?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The feasibility and the results of the introduction of an off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) program aimed at total arterial revascularization in a multidisciplinary institution were analyzed. Uniform surgical and anesthetic protocols were established and applied throughout the study period. METHODS: From March 2003--when the first OPCAB procedure of the program was performed--to July 2004, the data related to all the coronary artery bypass grafting procedures (N = 408) were prospectively recorded. The program was divided into two stages: the purpose of the first stage was to perform OPCAB in more than 90% of the patients, and that of the second stage was to proceed toward total arterial revascularization. The patients were grouped into four periods (102 patients for each period). Comparisons were performed with analysis of variance test and chi-square test where appropriate. RESULTS: For periods 1 to 4, the number of OPCAB procedures was 65/102 (64%), 82/102 (80%), 97/102 (95%), and 99/102 (97%), respectively (p < 0.001). The number of conversions did not vary significantly throughout the study (overall: 7/408, 1.7%), neither did the number of bypass/patient (overall: 3.05 +/- 0.86). The number of arterial graft/patient was 1.03 +/- 0.64, 1.01 +/- 0.4, 1.29 +/- 0.64, and 2.56 +/- 1, respectively (p < 0.001). During the last period, 81% (253/312) of the grafts were arterial. Overall mortality was 4.6% (19/408). For the OPCAB group, mortality was 2.9% (10/343) and perioperative myocardial infarction rate was 1.5% (5/343) with no statistically significant difference between the periods. CONCLUSIONS: With predefined standardized and coordinated protocols, an OPCAB program aimed at total arterial revascularization can be implemented rapidly and safely in a multidisciplinary setting.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".